The vaccine debate is ridiculous, just choose what is right for you

in #vaccines3 years ago

1998.jpgVaccines - the most misunderstood, most emotionally charged subject on the planet and also one of the simplest.
As a former medical research scientist who has dedicated years on developing vaccines here is my 2 cents worth.
Vaccines are drugs, they are not “safe” just like paracetamol or steroids or anti-inflammatories are not safe. No one can prove that a drug is safe because there is always a risk. The risks are known and documented and disclosed.
They work on protection from diseases - in the clinical trials I participated in, unvaccinated control animals died - 100% of them died if they were isolated away from vaccinated animals and some survived due to herd immunity if the groups were mixed. The one consistent thing we saw in clinical trials was that unvaccinated animals died on being challenged with the viral antigen and vaccinated animals survived. There was no conspiracy involved, we manufactured the vaccines ourselves in the lab and carried out the experiments.
Vaccines work best if they stimulate a local immunity in a muscle or other tissue. To do this, the adjuvant that carries the antigen needs to be a thicker construct. Aluminiums are used for this purpose and there are millions being spent on adjuvant research to come up with better carriers. If the antigen was put directly in water and injected, it would disappear into the extra cellular Spaces and not be effective in providing immunity. The adjuvant has to be thick enough to hold the vaccine into a tissue long enough to stimulate immunity. No one is using unsafe adjuvants on purpose to kill you.

Vaccines are provided Free to the public because the government wants to protect its herd of taxpayers - they know a percentage will Be adversely affected by the vaccines but I don’t care about individuals they work on numbers. Most of the herd will be protected.

As an individual there is always a risk.

People can choose to be unvaccinated and it is likely that they will be protected through herd immunity anyway.

Vaccine companies are profitable and there is no doubt they make money on researching and manufacturing vaccines, However this cannot be the only reason why vaccines are mandated.

If What happens in a clinical trial actually happens within a population of people, That is thousands of people dropping dead at the Same time society will not be able to cope. Medicare will not be able to cope and also the effect on the economy would be devastating. So yes it absolutely is about money but not in the way that people think, It’s not about the vaccine company making money it’s about keeping tax payers going and reducing the risk Of economically devastating an entire country

Governments cannot force individuals to be vaccinated and especially cannot force people who are financially free to do anything. So they mandate where they have control, those people dependent on government support. They have made it a condition of entry that if you are receiving government benefits you need to be vaccinated.

There are pros and anti-debates all day long on social media about vaccines and they are largely misunderstood and emotionally charged on both sides of the argument. Both sides sound like complete morons, it’s simple, There are risks on both sides decide, whether you want to be immune to certain pathogens or not and whether you are willing to take a drug with possible side effects to protect yourself. Not everyone has to agree with your decision for it to be the right one for you and you don’t have to justify your decision on social media. Just do it.

As for the $100,000 to prove a drug is safe, pffft!!!

https://globalnews.ca/news/3253840/robert-de-niro-robert-f-kennedy-jr-offer-100g-to-anyone-who-can-provide-proof-vaccines-are-safe/?fbclid=IwAR0V932K56JJ6DmZaWGM9_yuhEhFLQAWG-PteCtkLtXIVHIEOzuOAwhwrKQ

Sort:  

It's certainly a contentious issue; and you're right when you say they're not safe. Anything efficacious is unsafe.
Potency is potency.

My main misgivings revolved around incentives. If the Minister for Health had a damning finding land on his desk; that vaccines have definitely been causing x; for the reasons you mentioned, he doesn't want to be the guy in charge of health when thousands of people start dying from preventable diseases.
You don't get to be the Minister for Health by being brave and honest.
He's going to find any reason at all to kick the can down the road and make it the next guy's problem.
He'll find some reason to re-test. Commission a new study; drag his feet until he gets his pension, only to be replaced by the next guy with the same incentive structure.
The stakes are just too high. There could be dozens of these reports and we'd never hear about them.

The other problem I have is with these no jab, no play policies. When the state takes our money, its an unavoidable obligation for everyone; but when it gives some back that's a privilege enjoyed only by the obedient.
As the years go by, it's going to be harder and harder to qualify as obedient.
Naturally they start with popular stuff like vaccination. Then they expand which services are privileges, and the prerequisites to qualify for them; suddenly we're under a social credit score system like they've rolled out in China; and I can't buy a plane ticket because my Uncle isn't an organ donor.

Great points Matt
The gaining of tax payer funds is not only for the obedient, it is for the obedient and destitute. Anyone who has invested, saved or have been responsible with money in the course of their working life is entitled to nothing/zip, irrespective of how much tax they have paid and contributed along the way.

People who have not worked ever and are obedient to the demands of the system can gain help when they need it.

Flipping the conversation away from vaccines for a moment and using real estate as an example, we have a lot of real estate clients in nursing homes relying on rental income to fund their retirement and not entitled to a pension or reductions in the costs of medicines nor do they get discounts for public transport. They get nothing because they have been responsible enough when they were younger to own properties and save their money instead of enjoying it along the way.

Although on paper it looks good, in reality, the rental income is not always income, there is maintenance and vacancies associated with properties and this causes undue stress for the people in nursing homes with no other income. These are the worst kept properties, they are unable to do any maintenance causing tenants to leave and cause vacancies - its a disaster that you do not want to be dealing with when you are 98 years old.

While our investor clients get no funding or reduction in medicines or help with public transport from the government, the old people in the rocking chairs next to them who own nothing, have never owned anything, have nothing in the bank, never saved anything and enjoyed whatever they made along the way, paid less tax and contributed less than our investor clients, get a pension coming in every week to pay for the exact same nursing home with the exact same benefits and have absolutely nothing to stress about.

Where is the fairness in this system? Not looking after those who look after themselves is not a good system either. It's not about who paid tax, its about who is destitute and desperate and obedient.

So much truth there. I sometimes wonder if I'm irresponsible raising my children to be responsible.
Perhaps I'm doing them a disservice. Have you read Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand?

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.48
TRX 0.08
JST 0.060
BTC 47480.10
ETH 3925.19
BNB 538.37
SBD 5.66